His Holiness Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Samigal Srimatam Samasthanam v. The State, 2005 (1) CTC 657 (SC) 10, 25
R. Chandrasekar v. Inspector of Police, Fir Land Police Station, Salem, 2002 (5) CTC 598 10
Rajamani v. Inspector of Police, Salem, 2003 Crl.LJ 2902 10, 22
Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of Tami Nadu, 2005 (5) CTC 703 (SC) 10
State of State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC) 8, 18, 21
Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr) 497 (FB) (Bom.) 15, 20, 23
R. Shanmughasundaram, Senior Counsel for P. Venkatasubramaniam & A. Gopinath, Advocates for Petitioner.
C. Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; D. Saikumaran, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 in Crl.O.P No. 13103 of 2013; P. Raghu Raja, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 in Crl.O.P Nos. 13104 & 13105 of 2013.
Finding — Cr.O.P allowed.
Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for a direction directing the Respondents herein to defreeze the Petitioners' Bank accounts maintained with the respective 3rd Respondent-Bank.
JUDGMENT
1. All these three Petitions have been filed seeking for a direction directing the Respondents to defreeze the Bank Accounts maintained by the Petitioners with the respective 3rd Respondent-Banks.
2. Since the issues involved in all these three Petitions are one and the same, these Petitions are disposed of by way of this common Order.
3. One Tmt. T. Subbulakshmi is the Petitioner in Crl.O.P Nos. 13103 & 13105 of 2013 and her daughter T. Yamini is the Petitioner in Crl.O.P No. 13104 of 2013.
4. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, has registered cases against the Petitioners in Crime Nos. 154, 233 & 315 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC. The Petitioner-Subbulakshmi was arrested on 25.10.2012 at Bangalore and she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on 26.10.2012 and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, she was released on bail. The Petitioner-T. Yamini, who has been arrayed as Accused in Crime No. 315 of 2012, obtained anticipatory bail from this Court.
5. It is the case of the Petitioners that only due to the personal and political vendetta, the above Criminal cases have been foisted against them. The Petitioner-Subbulakshmi was examined during her Police custody by the Respondent-Police on 25.10.2012 & 26.10.2012 As per the Orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, she was subjected to three days' Police custody from 2.11.2012 to 5.11.2012 till 5.00 p.m But, even at the time of custody, no materials were recovered from her.
6. It is further case of the Petitioners that the Petitioner Subbulakshmi is maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the Indian Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai vide Savings Bank Account No. 443503512 and she is also maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the Indian Overseas Bank, Valmiki Nagar Branch, Chennai, vide Savings Bank Account No. 147201000002821. The Petitioner-T. Yamini is maintaining Savings Bank Account with the Indian Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai, vide Savings Bank Account No. 443519920. The above said three Bank Accounts were frozen by the said Banks on the written request dated 27.9.2012 made by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, the Petitioners have sent Legal Notices to the Banks on 27.10.2012 stating that freezing of the Bank Accounts is not in consonance with the law & practice and the legal formalities, which have to be obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, have not been followed. Further, there is no progress in the investigation since April-2012 and the motive for freezing of the Bank accounts of the Petitioners is only to put the Petitioners in great hardship and mental agony. Hence, the Petitioners have come forward with the present Petitions before this Court seeking a direction directing the Respondents to defreeze their Bank Accounts.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 102 of Cr.P.C, which deals with the powers of the Police Officer to seize certain property, submitted that if the seizure of the property is only in accordance with the provision of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the same can be sustainable, otherwise such a seizure is not legally sustainable.
8. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment reported in State of State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC) : 1999 (7) SCC 685, and submitted that as per the dictum laid down in the said Judgment, the Bank Account will fall within the meaning of the property mentioned under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, and that therefore, unless the freezing of the Bank Account is in accordance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the same cannot be legally sustainable. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to sub-section (3) to Section 102 of Cr.P.C and submitted that every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) to Section 102, shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and that in the instant case, though the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners were freezed on the written request dated 27.9.2012 made by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, the freezing of the Bank Accounts was not reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction forthwith. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that therefore, the freezing of the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners is not legally sustainable and the Respondents may be directed to defreeze the Bank Accounts of the Petitioner.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in B. Ranganathan v. State, 2003 Crl.LJ 2779, in support of his contention that as per the dictum laid down in the said Judgment, if the Bank Account of the Accused is freezed, the Police should report the concerned Magistrate forthwith regarding the Prohibitory Order and the Police should also give Notice of the seizure to the Accused and allow him/her to operate the Bank Account subject to his/her executing a bond.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the following Judgments in support of his contention that if seizure was not reported forthwith to the concerned Magistrate, the same is not legally sustainable:
(1) R. Chandrasekar v. Inspector of Police, Fir Land Police Station, Salem, 2002 (5) CTC 598;
(2) Rajamani v. Inspector of Police, Salem, 2003 Crl.LJ 2902;
(3) His Holiness Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Samigal Srimatam Samasthanam v. The State, 2005 (1) CTC 657 (SC);
(4) Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of Tami Nadu, 2005 (5) CTC 703 (SC) : 2005 (8) SCC 771; and
(5) Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Crl.LJ 148.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that by applying the ratio laid down in the above said Judgments, a direction may be given to the Respondents to defreeze the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the property situated at Old No. 189, New No. 51, Sholinganallur Village, “The Sea Shore Town” Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, S. No. 12/1 an 12/2 as per Patta S. No. 12/356, Plot No. 297 measuring an extent of 12,000 sq.ft (5 grounds) originally belonged to one Chokkalinga Mudaliar. From the said Chokkalinga Mudaliar, the said property was purchased by one Mr. Mahendra Kumar N. Kampani and his wife Mrs. Malini Mahendra Kumar N. Kamapani vide Sale Deed dated 25.2.1967 registered as Document No. 881/1967. The said Mrs. Malini Mahendra Kumar N. Kampani died on 7.2.1980 and Mr. Mahendra Kumar N. Kampani died on 26.8.1997 After their demise, one Dhanalakshmi, relative of the Petitioners herein, created a forged Power of Attorney dated 12.4.2007 along with eleven other persons and executed a Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner-Subbulakshmi on 17.5.2007 and the Petitioner-Subbulakshmi executed a Settlement Deed dated 22.4.2008 in favour of one Mrs. Yuba T. Reichard, who in turn executed a Power of Attorney in favour of T. Yamini, the Petitioner in Crl.O.P No. 13104 of 2013. Thus, the Petitioners involved in the land grabbing and they had been depositing the income that they were deriving from the said property in the Bank Accounts, and in respect of which Freezing Order was issued.
13. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C, only such of those properties seized from the Accused, if it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or there is difficulty in securing the proper accommodation for the custody of such property or the continued retention of the property in Police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, only then the report of the seizure should be sent to the concerned Magistrate and not in all the cases. So far as the freezing of Bank Account is concerned, it is only a Prohibitory Order preventing the Petitioners from operating the Bank account and no actual seizure of the property involved. Therefore, the question of sending report to the Magistrate forthwith does not arise in this case.
14. The learned Public Prosecutor has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in the case of C. Aranganayagam v. State by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Erode, 2000 (1) MLJ 408 (Mad), and submitted that the dictum laid down in the said judgment would show that the non-compliance of the provisions under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C can be considered only as an irregularity and the same cannot vitiate the entire freezing.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon the Judgment delivered by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court reported in Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB) (Bom.), and submitted that the freezing of the bank account does not deprive any person of his liberty or his property. The prohibition is temporary in nature, till the merits of the case is decided and therefore, non-reporting of freezing of the accounts to the Magistrate will not vitiate the entire Freezing proceedings.
16. I have carefully heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
17. Since the entire submissions were made on either side by placing reference to the Section 102 of Cr.P.C, which deals with the power of Police Officer to seize certain property, it would be appropriate to extract Section 102 of Cr.P.C:
“102. Power of Police Officer to seize certain Property.—(1) Any Police Officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such Police Officer, if subordinate to the Officer in charge of a Police Station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in Police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:
Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the Orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457 & 458, shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.”.
18. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, the “bank account” falls within the meaning of the property mentioned under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, and therefore, if there is any violation in following the procedures contemplated under Section 102, the freezing of the Bank account is not sustainable in law. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC) : 1999 (7) SCC 685, wherein it has been held as follows:
“Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the Bank Account can be held to be “property” within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the Bank Account of the Accused then the entire money deposited in a Bank, which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the Accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the Accused as a Public Officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the Bank Account of the Accused or any of his relations is “property” within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a Police Officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the Police Officer is investigating into.”
From the dictum laid down in the above said judgment, it is clear that the Bank Account will fall within the meaning of the property mentioned under Section 102 of Cr.P.C and the same is attachable and the Police Officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when it has been clearly held in the said Judgment that the Bank Account is a property within the meaning of the Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C, and the Investigating Officer can seize the same in the course of investigation, the same has to be done only in accordance with the provisions of Section 102. As per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C, the Police Officer shall report with regard to seizure of the property forthwith to the concerned Magistrate, but in the instant case, the freezure of the Bank Account was not reported forthwith to the Magistrate, which is in total violation to the provision under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C
19. In this regard a reference could be placed on the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners reported in B. Ranganathan v. State, 2003 Crl.L.J 2779, wherein it has been held by this Court as follows:
“21. Yet another legal aspect pointed out on the part of the Petitioner by his Counsel is the procedure that is to be adopted on seizure of Bank Account. In case of seizure of a Bank Account, the Police Officer should do two things; he should inform the concerned Magistrate forthwith regarding the Prohibitory Order. He should also give notice of the seizure to the Accused and allow him/her to operate the Bank Account subject to his/her executing a bond undertaking to produce the amounts in account as and when required or to hold them subject to such orders as the Court may make regarding the disposal of the same. An order under Section 102, without doing so is liable to be set aside, as held in Swaran Saharawal v. Commissioner of Police, 1988 Cri. LJ 241 (Delhi) (extracted supra). This procedure that is to be followed and felt mandatory has also not been followed by the First Respondent.”
20. But, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, in the case in B. Ranganathan v. State, 2003 Crl.LJ 2779, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners the bank accounts of the entire family members of the Accused were freezed and only in that background, this Court held that the Police Officer should inform the concerned Magistrate with regard to the Prohibitory Order. The factual aspects of the case in hand are totally different from the factual aspects of the case relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is only a Prohibitory Order preventing the Petitioners from operating the Bank Accounts and therefore, the Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be made applicable to the present case. In support of his contention the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment reported in Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB) (Bom.), and submitted that even if the Police does not comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 102(3), it is only an irregularity, which would not vitiate the entire freezing. The relevant portion in the said judgment reads as follows:
“12. No doubt under Section 102(3), Criminal Procedure Code, every Police Officer acting under Section 102(1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Now in the present case, immediately it has not been complied with by the First Respondent. Simply because the 1st Respondent failed to comply with Section 102(3) Criminal Procedure Code, it cannot be concluded that the entire freezing of the Account is vitiated. At best, it can be said that it is only irregular and the 1st Respondent has failed to comply with the procedure. Further more, the bank itself has communicated to the Petitioner within a period of 59 days from the date of freezing of account, but, however, the Petitioner has come forward with an Application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C, only after a period of one year from the date of freezing of account.”
21. But, in my considered opinion, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC) : 1999 (7) SCC 685, it has been clearly held that the Bank Account will come within the meaning of the property mentioned under Section 102 of Cr.P.C Since it has been legally settled in the said Judgment that the Bank Account is a property within the meaning of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, there can not be two different yardsticks in following the procedures to seize the property, one for a bank account and another for other than the bank account. Hence, in my opinion the freezing of the Bank Account has to be done only as per the procedure laid down under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate will not apply to the Bank Account.
22. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that non-compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, is only an irregularity and it will not vitiate the freezing of the bank account, I am not inclined to accept the said submission, since Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C mandates the report of the seizure of the property to the Magistrate. In fact, the judgment in C. Aranganayagam v. State by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode, 2000 (1) MLJ 408 (Mad), relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor was delivered by this Court in the case filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said Judgment was considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajamani v. Inspector of Police, Salem, 2003 Cri. LJ 2902, wherein it has been held as followed:
“12. On the part of the Respondents, the learned Government Advocate would also cite a Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in C. Aranganayagam v. State, by Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode Detachment, Erode, 2000 MLJ (Crl.) 20, where, in a case registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the commission of the offence on the part of the Accused under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned Single Judge, has arrived at the conclusion that:
“Every Police Officer acting under Section 102(1), Cr.P.C shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Simply because the first Respondent failed to comply with Section 102(3), Criminal Procedure Code, the entire freezing of the account is not vitiated”.
This Judgment is in a case of corruption, wherein the accounts of the Accused therein have been frozen and in a case of corruption, the investigation is done entirely on a different platform and therefore the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge pertaining to the facts and circumstances encircling the said case have absolutely no bearing on the facts and circumstances and the position of law regarding the case in hand and therefore the norms held therein cannot be applied to this case.”
Therefore, as observed earlier, I am of the opinion that the Judgment relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor was delivered in a Prevention of Corruption Act and the factual aspect of the said case totally stands in a different platform and the said Judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, since the Petitioners herein/Accused have been charged for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that reporting the seizure of the property forthwith to the Magistrate would arise only to such of those properties which cannot be transported to the Court or there is difficulty in securing the proper accommodation for the custody of such property or the continued retention of the property in Police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation.
23. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr) 497, in support of his contention that freezing of Bank Account does not deprive of any person of his liberty or his property, I find that the in said Judgment the question that had been dealt with was that whether Section 102 of Cr.P.C, requires the issuance of Notice to the account holder/Accused before or simultaneously with the action of attaching the Bank account and while dealing with the said question, the Full Bench of Bombay High Court held that the freezing of Bank account is an act in investigation and it does not deprive any person of his liberty or his property and Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, does not require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action of attaching Bank account. But, the question that has arisen for consideration in the case on hand is whether the freezing of the Bank account by the Police Officer during the course of investigation has to be reported forthwith to the concerned Magistrate or not. Therefore, the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court referred to above cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
24. Further, to decide the issue involved in this case as to whether the reporting the seizure of the bank account to the Magistrate by the Investigating Officer is necessary or not, useful reference could be placed on some of the Judgments, which were relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners.
25. In the judgment reported in His Holiness Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Samigal Srimatam Samasthanam v. The State, 2005 (1) CTC 657, it has been held as follows:
“29. Though ‘Bank Accounts’ is not explicitly mentioned under the said provision, the Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently taken the view that the word “property” would include Bank accounts also. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute this position, and it therefore follows that the power under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, could be extended to Bank deposits/accounts also and the Competent Authority can take steps to freeze the accounts, if the other requirements are satisfied.
30. A reading of the provision clearly indicates the scope of the power under the provision and that it is an exhaustive provision. Only two categories of properties are mentioned, namely, (1) alleged or suspected to have been stone, or (2) which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. No other categories can be included or deemed to be included as may otherwise be possible in an expansive definition by using certain other expressions in addition such as “as the case may be”, “as the authorities deem fit and necessary”, etc., which may render the provision an inclusive and illustrative one and not an exhaustive one. The language of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, is very clear and it is clearly an exhaustive provision, as it should be. Otherwise, the provision would be arbitrary and unconnected to the offence and would be liable to be misused for ulterior purposes. Therefore, designedly, the Parliament has restricted the power under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, to specific and narrow limits.
31. In State of State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (3) CTC 350 : 1999 (7) SCC 685, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, vis-a-vis, what constitutes “property”. While holding that Bank account would also fall under the provision, the Supreme Court also held that the amount has to be the outcome of commission of offence by the Accused, if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the Police officer is investigating into.
32. The legal position for invoking Section 102 of Cr.P.C, is thus very clear, namely, that Bank deposits can also be brought under the provision, provided, the deposits represent either stolen money or should be connected with the commission of any offence. In short, there must be nexus to the crime alleged and the money to be seized. The charge in this case is not of theft, and therefore, the first alternative, which is specific, is not satisfied. The second alternative, which is general in nature, has to be examined in the light of the factual background of this case.”
26. Similar issue has been dealt with by the Bombay High Court in the judgment reported in Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Crl.LJ 148, and the relevant portions in the said Judgment are as follows:
“So far as requirement under Section 102(1) is concerned, it is obligatory upon the Police to show that the property which they want to attach or attaching is under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
…………….
Second requirement of Section 102(2) of Cr.P.C, is that the officer seizing the account or attaching the account subordinate to the officer in charge of the Police station has to forthwith report the seizure of attachment to his superior i.e, to the officer in charge of the Police Station.
…………..
Third requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 102, lays down a mandate that every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure or attachment of accounts to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Admittedly, this is not done in the present case. Paragraph 5 of the second Affidavit of Mr. Pardeshi, quoted above is very clear in this regard as well as the oral submission of Mrs. Mahispurkar. It will be therefore clear that there is absolutely no compliance to any of the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C, in this matter. Consequently, the Petition is required to be allowed and the orders are required to be quashed as prayed for.”
27. From the dictum laid down in the Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners it is clear that the Bank account is a property within the meaning of Section 102 of Cr.P.C and sub-section (3) to Section 102 requires the reporting of seizure of the property to the concerned Magistrate forthwith, which is mandatory in nature. Moreover, the freezing of bank account is an act of the investigation and therefore, the duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C to report the same to the Magistrate, since the freezure of the Bank Account prevents the person from operating the Bank Account pursuant to an investigation by the Police in a Criminal case registered against him. If there is any violation in following the procedures under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the freezing of the Bank Account cannot be legally sustained. Since in the case on hand the 2nd Respondent-Police has not reported the freezing of the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners herein to the concerned Magistrate forthwith, which is mandatory under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C, the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent-Police in freezing of the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners herein are not legally sustainable.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the present Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent-Police dated 27.9.2012 in freezing the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners herein are hereby quashed. Since the present order of quashing the proceedings is only on technical ground, it is made clear that the Investigating Officer (2nd Respondent herein) may initiate fresh proceedings after following the procedures as indicated above.